.....Ditto

FRANKENSTEIN wasn't original?

In some ways it was- but in most ways it wasn't.
It took its main ideas from Shelley's novel and then produced the most basic presentation of them possible. Most of this had to do with budget/studio restrictions, but anything that wasn't taken directly from Shelley's book was some kind of simplification of it.

So if we're speaking in terms of sheer for-the-screen originality, I've gotta go with Tarantino's mothership.

Humbug!
Pierce's makeup was one of the most original creations on film, ever- certainly back then! The lab created by Strickfaden was the blueprint for mad doctor's labs for 30 years. And certainly Clive's portrayal set the template for mad scientists for... forever. And the biggest inovation- playing the monster for sympathy broke tradition. The film created an entire HORROR FILM INDUSTRY. This one film, because of being such a trend setter and for capturing the audience's heart so decisively assured that horror films as a genre would enjoy a long life.

FRANKENSTEIN'S influence cannot be overestimated.

Yes, it did do all that. However, it also obliviated an originally humanistic and mature commentary on mankind and replaced it with a monster movie armed only with the intention of a "monster bad, man good" mindset.
Well, this complete mis-translation was an enormous success, and one that may have been responsible for an immediate stereotype that horror movies could not bare any kind of morale on life but instead were only created with the intention of showering their audiences with an appropriate amount of shock value followed by an inevitable victory by man.

I sincerely enjoy James Whale's Frankenstein, but its complete disregard for the intention of its source material has always been a turn-off for me, and when it is pitted against a movie like Pulp Fiction, it falls short.

If this were King Kong, things would be different.

With all due respect, I belive you have completely misread the film. Karloff's monster is clearly shown as a tortured soul and a sympathetic character. We are not lead to root for the lumbering mob, but for the poor confused creature who has no idea how to function in the world.

I'm sorry, but I COMPLETELY disagree with your analysis and the legacy the film left us with. In fact I find it to be exactly OPPOSITE what you say. In later Universal Frankenstein films the creature was demoted to a mere thug, but in the first three, it's the monster we root for. The Dr. even says this- that he considers the creature to be a man.

In the book Frankenstein hates his creation and wants only to kill it. He never sees his creation as a man. This is, indeed a basic difference in the book, but I believe it results in exactly to opposite effect on the audience than you describe.

Very interesting discussion.

5-3, Pulp Fiction leads over Frankenstein.

Frankenstein .

Pulp Fiction.

To clarify my point- I'm not arguing that Frankenstein is a great adaptation of the book- of course it is not. But I AM arguing it's a GREAT movie, an iconic horror film which stands as a landmark in film history which had a great influence on the film industry. The sequel was better, but Frankenstein paved the way.

In the same way One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest is an AWFUL, AWFUL adaptation of the book. It dumbs down the story, radically changes the focus and lacks both the subtelety and impact of the novel. Kesey hated it so much at the time he demanded his name not be used in any way in conjunction with the film. Yet it's a great movie that stands on its own and deserves its place in film history.

Frankenstein

Pulp Fiction.

No denying Frankenstein's status, but Pulp is the more complete entertainer of the two.

7-5, Pulp Fiction just about manages to speed past the finish line at the final moments.

Round 3 Match 9


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...PL._SS500_.jpg

Die Hard (1988)
Director - John McTiernan




vs.




http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...2L._SS500_.jpg

Apocalypse Now (1979)
Director - Francis Ford Coppola

Apocalypse Now

die hard..

Apocalypse Now

@#%$$$@%$^@#^$!!!!!

Apocalypse Now

apocalypse Now

Apocalypse now

Die Hard

Apocalypse Now.

Apocalypse Now.

How are we supposed to relate Karloff's monster to a human being when it functions so blatantly as a monster? In the novel, the creature has a drive to be a free spirit, and goes about learning language and studying human function and family relation.

A perfect example is the scene in which the monster kills a child. In the book, it is out of frustration; he siezes the child and begs him to help him, but is only jabbed at with monster remarks and hideous screams of detestation. Out of panic and pure, spur-of-the-moment anger, the monster murders the child. Afterwards, he experiences sensations of power but also, later, guilt, a feeling of absolute humanity. In the movie, the victim is a little girl (of course, it's much more shocking!), and, as Mel Brooks pointed out years later in his comic spoof, throws the girl in the water because he can- they are out of flower petals, and he realizes he has the strength to drown the poor being. There is no call for the murder, and we, as an audience, are given no post-murder scenes of remorse or feeling at all. The creature simple bumbles onward.

In Shelley's novel, the monster can think for himself, and obviously adapts humanistic emotions; in the movie, there is NO transformation between the creation of the monster and the death of him. Think of the most iconic screen capture from the film; it is Karloff emerging from his dungeon with a horrifying look of murder in his eyes- this is right before he murder's the doctor's assistant. And this image, this iconic, monsterous Karloff look, is the image that every person knows when the word Frankenstein is mentioned. This image. Not the image from the book where the monster pours out his guilty sins to a ship captain while tears literally stream down his face, not the scene from the book where he watches a family for a year and a half, dreaming of one day joining that family and living in peace.

I guess I may have watched the film with different eyes, but when I see the ending I am left with a barbaric feeling of relief when the monster is destroyed and Dr. Frankenstein (thank God!) is returned to his rich household and beautiful, longing wife. There is no push for sympathy- instead, there is the idea that man created monster, man destroyed monster, man shouldn't play God- but if we do, we can handle it.

Note that I am not speaking of Bride of Frankenstein, only the first installment.

7-2, Apocalypse Now sweeps over Die Hard.

Round 3 Match 10


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...CL._SS500_.jpg

Blade Runner (1982)
Director - Ridley Scott




vs.




http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...4L._SS500_.jpg

Battle Royale aka Batoru Rowaiaru (2000)
Director - Kinji Fukasaku

He doesn't throw the girl in- he gently places her in the water out of sheer dumb innocence- he sees her as a pretty flower.

And the look on the creature's face is desperation.

He murders Fritz to end his own torment, unable to deal with Fritz's torture any longer.

Well, agree to disagree. Still friends? :)


Blade Runner.

Naturally!

Blade Runner.

Blade Runner

I couldn't choose, I love both films so much for such different reasons. I will stop the slaughter with a vote for Battle Royale.

Blade Runner

Blade Runner

Battle Royale. Tough choice though, but it just had so much originality and satire.

Bladerunner.

Battle Royale

Battle Royale

Blade Runner was fun, but it didnt really blow me away.

6-4, Blade Runner stops a late comeback by Battle Royale.

Round 3 Match 11


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...JL._SS500_.jpg

Seven Samurai aka Shichinin No Samurai (1954)
Director - Akira Kurosawa




vs.




http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...rL._SS500_.jpg

Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Director - George A. Romero